| spemanig said: I mean a point of comparison. Zelda isn't a point of comparison because you can't play Zelda on PS4, XBO, or PC. Call of Duty is because you can. Everything is relative. There's no relativity to the experience of playing Nintendo exclusives on Switch vs. everything else other than that you can't play them on everything else, which is not something the Switch does new. What the Switch does new is play console games untethered to your TV. That's its value proposition. Without multiplats, that experience can only be compared to other systems with the same games, which are Nintendo systems. That gives portability the same value with the same audience as all Nintendo systems have had, success or failure. Without multiplats, portability adds no value that Nintendo exclusives didn't already had because the only games it effects are Nintendo exclusives. With multiplats, it the value of portability applies to all multiplats. If you own a PS4/XBO/PC, every software purchase decision must now factor in the Switch when deciding what you want to buy your game. Each platform has a reason to buy it there. The Switch's reason is portability. If those people cared about Nintendo exclusives, they would have bought a Wii U. Switch needs the Red Deads and the ME:As too. Maybe not all in the first year, but eventually. |
Good pr work for a disaster, quality post.
But none give a flyin F about playng COD on a handheld. And none are going to get a severly downgraded version of games avialable on PS4/X1/PC because its "portable"
